Systematic review of knowledge translation strategies in the allied health professions

Scott, Shannon D; Albrecht, Lauren; O’Leary, Kathy; Ball, Geoff DC; Hartling, Lisa; Hofmeyer, Anne; Jones, C Allyson; Klassen, Terry P; Burns, Katharina Kovacs; Newton, Amanda S; Thompson, David; Dryden, Donna M

doi:10.1186/1748-5908-7-70

Implementation Science

Table 2

From: Systematic review of knowledge translation strategies in the allied health professions

First author (Year) Country	Study design (Sample size)	Single/ multiple intervention	EPOC intervention(s)	Type of targeted behaviour (EPOC) (specific behaviour targeted)	Main outcomes (EPOC)	Effect on main outcomes Consistent (C), Mixed (M), Unclear, Not done
Pharmacy studies
Hoffmann, W, et al.[62] (2008) Germany	Randomized controlled trial (112 pharmacies)	Multiple	Professional- educational meetings	Procedures (intensified structured counselling)	Patient	M
			Professional- educational material
Hirsch, JD, et al.[60](2009) USA	Retrospective cohort study (10 pharmacies)	Single	Financial: provider-fee for service	General management of a problem (medication therapy management services)	Patient	M¹
Munroe, WP, et al.[69](1997) USA	Retrospective cohort study (8 pharmacies)	Single	Professional- educational meetings	General management of a problem (patient-focused pharmacist intervention)	Economic	M
Bracchi, RCG, et al.[50](2005) UK	Non-concurrent cohort study (261 Pharmacists)	Single	Professional- educational material	Procedures (adverse drug reaction reporting)	Professional/process	C (significant positive effect)
Dualde, E, et al.[54](2009) Spain	Non-concurrent cohort study (190 Pharmacists)	Single	Professional- educational meetings	Procedures (pharmacotherapy follow-up services)	Professional/process	M
Airaksinen, M, et al.[45] (1998) Finland	Before-after study (7 pharmacies)	Multiple	Professional- educational materials	Procedures (patient counselling)	Professional/process	M
			Professional- mass media		Patient
Benrimoj, SI, et al.[49](2007) Australia	Before-after study (40 pharmacies)	Multiple	Professional- educational meetings	Procedures (standards of practice for handling non-prescription meds)	Professional/process	M
			Professional- educational outreach visits
			Professional- audit and feedback
Egen, V, et al.[55](2003) Germany	Before-after study (42 Pharmacists)	Multiple	Professional- mass media Professional- educational outreach visits Professional- educational materials	Patient education (promoting prophylaxis)	Professional/process	M²
Fjortoft, N, et al.[56](2003) USA	Before-after study (49 Pharmacists)	Multiple	Professional- educational meetings	General management of a problem (lipid management and hypertension services)	Professional/process	M
			Professional- educational material
Fjortoft, N, et al.[57](2007) USA	Before-after study (33 Pharmacists)	Multiple	Professional- educational meetings	Other (preceptor leadership)	Professional/process	Not done³
			Professional- reminders
Martin, BA, et al.[65](2010) USA	Before-after study (25 Pharmacists)	Multiple	Professional- educational meetings	General management of a problem (tobacco cessation)	Professional/process	C⁴ (significant positive effect)
			Professional- educational material
Brooks, V. G.[51] (2001) USA	Cross-sectional study (213 Pharmacists)	Single	Professional- educational meetings	Other (broad education activities)	Professional/process	M
Physiotherapy Studies
Bekkering, GE, van Tulder MW, et al.[48] (2005) The Netherlands	Randomized controlled trial (113 Physiotherapists)	Multiple	Professional- educational materials	General management of a problem (clinical guidelines for low back pain)	Patient	C (non-significant)
			Professional- educational meetings
Bekkering, GE, Hendricks, HJM, et al.[47] (2005) The Netherlands	Randomized controlled trial (113 Physiotherapists)	Multiple	Professional- educational materials	General management of a problem (clinical guidelines for low back pain)	Professional/process	C (significant positive effect)
			Professional- educational meetings
Hoeijenbos, M, et al.[61] (2005) The Netherlands	Randomized controlled trial (113 Physiotherapists)	Multiple	Professional- educational materials (2)	General management of a problem (clinical guidelines for low back pain)	Economic	M⁵
			Professional- educational meetings
Rebbeck, T, et al.[72] (2006) Australia	Randomized controlled trial (27 Physiotherapists)	Multiple	Professional- educational meetings	General management of a problem (clinical guidelines for acute whiplash)	Patient	C⁶ (non-significant)
			Professional- educational outreach visits
			Professional- educational materials (3)
Stevenson, K, et al.[74] (2006) UK	Randomized controlled trial (30 Physiotherapists)	Multiple	Professional- educational meetings	General management of a problem (clinical management of patients with low back pain)	Professional/process	M
			Professional- local opinion leaders
Kerssens, JJ, et al.[64] (1999) The Netherlands	Interrupted time series (without comparison group) (19 Physiotherapists)	Single	Professional- educational meetings	Patient education	Professional/process	C⁷ (non-significant)
Brown, CJ et al.[52] (2005) USA	Cross-sectional study (94 Physiotherapists)	Multiple⁸	Professional- educational outreach visits	Illness prevention (fall prevention)	Professional/process	C⁹ (significant positive effect)
			Professional- educational material (2)
Gross, DP, et al.[58] (2009) Canada	Cross-sectional study (241 Physiotherapists)	Multiple	Professional- educational meetings	General management of a problem (work disability prevention)	Professional/process	Unclear¹⁰
			Professional- educational materials
			Professional- local opinion leaders
Schreiber, J, et al.[73] (2009) Canada	Qualitative - participatory action research (5 Physiotherapists)	multiple	Professional- educational meetings	Other (evidence-based practice)	Professional/process	Sustained positive attitude and beliefs about evidence-based practice.
			Professional- educational material (2)
						Variable performance related to evidence-based practice knowledge and behaviours.
Physiotherapy and Occupational Therapy Studies
Nikopoulou-Smyrni, P, et al.[70] (2007) UK	Randomized controlled trial (4 Physiotherapists and 4 Occupational Therapists)	Multiple	Professional- educational meetings	Procedures (application of new clinical reasoning model)	Professional/process	Unclear
			Professional-reminders
Tripicchio, B, et al.[75] (2009) USA	Before-after study (24 Therapists)	Single	Professional- educational meetings	Professional-patient communication (OPN Method)	Professional/process	M
Occupational Therapy Studies
McCluskey, A, et al.[66] (2005) Australia	Before-after study (114 Occupational Therapists)	Multiple	Professional- educational meetings	Other (evidence-based practice)	Professional/process	M
			Professional- educational material
			Professional- reminders¹¹
Hammond, A, et al.[59] 2005) UK	Cross-sectional study (48 Occupational Therapists)	Single	Professional- educational meetings	General management of a problem (joint protection)	Professional/process	Not done¹²
McKenna, K, et al.[67] (2005) Australia	Cross-sectional study (213 Occupational Therapists)	Single	Professional- educational material	Other (evidence-based practice)	Professional/process	Not done
Vachon, B, et al.[76] (2009) Canada	Qualitative - grounded theory (8 Occupational Therapists)	Single	Professional- educational meetings	Other (evidence-based decision making)	Professional/process	Participants developed their ability to use 6 different types of reflective thinking, which brought about perspective changes in their clinical decision-making process and sometimes lead to application in professional practice. Perspective changes were not achieved at the same pace/level by all participants.
Dietetics Studies
Banz, M, et al.[46] (2004) USA	Randomized controlled trial (172 Dieticians)	Single	Professional- educational meetings	Patient education	Professional/process	M
Brug, J, et al.[53] (2007) The Netherlands	Randomized controlled trial (37 Dieticians)	Single	Professional- educational meetings¹³	Procedures (counselling style)	Professional/process	M¹⁴
Johnson, ST, et al.[63] (2007) Canada	Cross-sectional study (103 Dieticians)	Single	Professional- educational meetings	Patient education	Professional/process	M
Speech-Language Pathology Studies
Pennington, L, et al.[71] (2005) UK	Randomized controlled trial (34 Speech-Language Pathologists)	Single	Professional- educational meetings	Other (evidence-based practice)	Professional/process	C¹⁵ (non-significant)
Molfenter, SM, et al.[68] (2009) Canada	Qualitative - not clear (4 Speech-Language Pathologists)	Single	Professional- educational outreach visits¹⁶	General management of a problem (Dysphagia)	Professional/process	The intervention enhanced the participants learning and allowed them to offer a greater quantity and variety of services to their patients.

¹Secondary outcomes measured at the level of economics with mixed effect.
²Secondary outcomes measured at the level of the patient with mixed effect.
³Secondary outcomes identified at the level of the professional/process with positive effect; however, comparative statistics were not done.
⁴Secondary outcomes measured at the level of the professional/process with a consistent, statistically significant, positive effect and Tertiary outcomes measured at the level of the professional/process with consistent effect (non-significant).
⁵Secondary outcomes measured at the level of the patient with mixed effect.
⁶Secondary outcomes measured at the level of the professional/process with mixed effect and the level of economics with consistent effect (non-significant).
⁷Secondary outcomes measured at the level of the patient with consistent effect (non-significant).
⁸Participants exposed to other interventions (not described or measured in this research report) as part of an ongoing, community-wide effort to translate research evidence into practice.
⁹Secondary outcomes were identified at the level of the professional/process; however, results were not reported.
¹⁰Secondary outcomes measured at the level of economics with consistent effect (non-significant).
¹¹The intervention also included an optional educational outreach visit; however, data was not collected or reported on this aspect of the intervention.
¹²Secondary outcome measured at the level of the professional/process with mixed effect.
¹³The intervention had an additional component termed ‘on demand feedback and advice’ that cannot be classified within the EPOC frameworkiple (n=1 (n=21.
¹⁴Secondary outcomes measured at the level of the patient with mixed effect.
¹⁵Secondary outcomes measured at the level of economics with consistent effect (non-significant).
¹⁶The intervention had an additional component termed ‘monitor progress, provide assistance on as needed basis via email, telephone, in-person’ that cannot be classified within the EPOC framework.

Back to article page

ISSN: 1748-5908

Contact us

Submission enquiries: Access here and click Contact Us
General enquiries: info@biomedcentral.com